Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by Adjournment Application Filed Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 06/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 06/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10318632 dated 26/12/2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19.
None represented on behalf of the assessee, however, the adjournment application has been filed requesting for adjournment on 09/10/2025.
Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld. Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue. As it is noticed that the issue is very simple and does not require to be adjourned. The appeal is being disposed off ex parte the assessee.
It was submitted by the ld. Sr.DR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 364 days in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee had given Kunal Kumar Singh Vs ITO explanation before the ld. CIT(A) but the ld. CIT(A) admittedly has not accepted the reasons. The ld. Sr.DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the submissions and also perused the order of the ld. CIT(A). A perusal of the facts shows that the delay in filing of the appeal was due to the alleged default on the part of the assessee to approach a tax consultant. A perusal of the paper book filed shows that the ld. Authorised Representative Shri Sumit Mittal, who was dealing with the income tax matters had undergone brain tumor surgery in July, 2024. This also caused delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. It is noticed that the assessee has delayed in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on account of mistake and advise. The reasons given by the assessee are plausible. It is also noticed that the appeal filed before the Tribunal is also delayed. The reasons given by the assessee is that the ld. Authorized representative of the assessee was hospitalized. Consequently, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal is liable to be condoned and we do so. Also considering the fact that the assessee has given a plausible explanation in regard to the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be condoned and we do so. Consequently, the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.